I think he was reunited with his father *in the U.S.* at one point, but he didn’t leave the country until the asylum/legal process was exhausted And I have no idea if the Secretary of Homeland Security relied on 279(b)(1)(H) at any point during all of that

If I remember correctly Gonzalez was reunited with his father under a treaty related to adoption and parental rights. His father wanted him back and requested his return. I believe the case was ultimately about parental custody not immigration.

It was a cluster%^&*. I think they were making a lot of it up as they went along but @reichlinmelnick.bsky.social would know better

if you wanna feel old look at what gonzales is up to these days

Teaching National Security Law... With an emphasis on avoiding that pesky "torture" bugaboo. (Probably)

This is also not one for my knowledge. Certainly, the idea that ORR could independently run its own repatriation service seems wildly wrong. My read of the statue suggests ORR could probably create some kind of voluntary process *in harmony with* Title 8, but not separate and parallel to.

Thank you, Aaron.

Also I don’t understand why Ensign kept saying the title 6 provision authorizes the *Secretary of Homeland Security* to repatriate the children (as opposed ORR/HHS). I know ORR said it’s working w/ DHS, but Ensign seemed to suggest that the statute itself vests authority in Noem

They're hiding something.

Wish I’d been listening in. I am also confused. I had been under the impression that they were arguing that the OBBBA provision authorizing funding for the removal of UCs who withdraw their applications for admission.

I didn't hear Ensign cite that. The only legal authority he cited was 6 U.S.C. § 279. He told the judge that it “authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Secretary to reunite children with their parents…This is reuniting children with their parents and guardians, as specifically promoted by Title 6.”

But maybe they will rely on the OBBBA provision when they file. I don't know. And Ensign did tell the judge that the case was "new" to him, too. Tbh he didn't seem to have a great grasp on the facts or the law. And he requested 5 days to brief it. So maybe legal arguments will change

[I'll add that the notification the government sent out to attorneys of record for the UCs also cited 6 USC § 279]:

aren’t you supposed to be enjoying your weekend?!

Yeah, I think they have a strong argument that ORR can play a role in creating a reunification process, but that would surely not be an *independent* process that doesn't interact with Title 8's removal structure.

I agree, since 279 & FSA divests DHS from authority over the UC's while they remain in the US. A better read is that there could be a parallel HHS/ORR process to reunite UC's w/parents if it complies with 8 USC & TVPRA reqs.

Question from a layperson: is he their top gun, ace in the hole guy? It seems like an exhausting job and they keep sending him out - made me wonder if they're short on talent

Some have been fired, some have resigned, and some refuse to dance around the truth in front of a judge, so he may be their go to.

I so appreciate your posts on every legal case you cover. You make it easy for us to follow and also help us better understand. Thank you for all you do Anna.

Sounds like maybe someone is combing through statues looking for stuff that fits the pre-decided narrative, maybe using AI, then turning it over to actual lawyers to try and make it fly. I suspect Miller's staff.

It was INS back then, DHS didn't exist yet, right?

Yep. Not until 2001.

Statute*